ANNAMMA MATHEW Vs. SECRETARY, RANNY-PAZHAVANGADI GRAMA PANCHAYATHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a septuagenarian. Her husband Sri.K.C Mathew took on lease a room and a hall bearing Nos.8 and 2 respectively of the building bearing No.IX/866 belonging to the Ranni -Pazhavangadi Grama Panchayat. Her husband died on 18.12.2013. Thereupon, the petitioner submitted Ext.P2 application before the first respondent for renewal of license in favour of herself and her son. Virtually, the petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents in considering Ext.P2 application. Earlier, the petitioner applied for a copy of rental agreement executed between her deceased husband and the panchayat, under the Right to Information Act. Ext.P8 is the piece of information given to the petitioner pursuant to the receipt of the said application. The petitioner filed the captioned writ petition seeking quashment of Ext.P8 and issuance of a writ of prohibition restraining the respondents from ousting the petitioner and her family from the aforesaid rooms and to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the first respondent to renew the rental agreement and license in respect of the aforesaid room and hall in favour of herself and her son.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the first respondent. Though the Vice President of the said panchayat is arrayed in the writ petition in his personal capacity, having regard to the allegations raised against him in this writ petition, I do not think that they are sufficient to constitute serious allegations of malafides to persuade this Court to call upon him to resist the case and therefore, it is unnecessary to issue notice to the second respondent in this proceedings. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the first respondent, I am of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of with directions. The learned standing counsel for the first respondent submitted that the lease period pertaining to the aforesaid room and hall had expired on 31.3.2014. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to canvass the position that what is involved is a license, in view of the failure on the part of the petitioner to produce the indenture I am not in a position to determine whether the indenture is a lease or license. True that the petitioner is having a grievance relating non -issuance of the copy of the rental agreement executed between her deceased husband and the panchayat. I do not think it necessary to call for the first respondent to produce the same, firstly, in view of the absence of any case for the petitioner that the period of license has not expired and secondly, a license is merely personal and it does not run with the land. A license is generally revocable at the will of the grantor. In the contextual situation, it is very pertinent to note the statement of the petitioner in Ground B in regard to the rental agreement. It reads thus: -